Chris and Monica,Is it possible to expunge an entire thread? If so, no point preserving these skeletal remains. If not, I will be back to pick up these bones and discard them.

Expunge, I had to look that up Yes we could have ditched the whole thing. But it's sort of fun, isn't it ? You should see the behemoth thread that blossomed at Piano World in a day's time ! I felt things were kinda boring here so decided to unlock the thread again. Don't follow it if you don't want to !

OTOH, if you have some bones to pick (do I understand correctly ?) by all means do so

I've noticed Chris puts on his good side when he posts on PianoStreet, must be intimidated.

Anyway, as I mentioned on PianoStreet, for me it is the best piano forum around.

And pianoLady, what a shame I wasted your dear precious time. So sorry!!!

I've noticed Chris puts on his good side when he posts on PianoStreet, must be intimidated.

Well, I'm an unknown newbie there and had no intention to start rubbing shoulders with the local bigshots. I only posted two short messages to try put in perspective some things that were said about what's been going on here at PS. On my best behavior, obviously.

guybacos wrote:

Anyway, as I mentioned on PianoStreet, for me it is the best piano forum around.

I can understand that. The place where you get the least flak is the place to be. Off ye go then !

Thanks, we'll try. It will be boring without you though.... If you start a new thread on Piano World I'll come and watch. It's mighty entertaining.That reminds me to check out all these kudos from concert pianists on your FB page

You make me feel like a star drawing all this attention to me, checking me everywhere I go, the forums I hang out, my FB wall. Of course, some will say, "get a life!", but that wouldn't be nice, would it?

I guess one of the problems for the listener is that once you start from the perspective that these are edited midis, albeit ones initiated by a pianist's performance, it doesn't take much imagination to realise that the performance doesn't have to be good, accurate, a tempo or anything. It can all be done by edit thereafter. Now I'm not intending to imply that the OP can't play the piano, nor that there has been wholescale dishonesty going on, but frankly a competent sightreader could play through many of the etudes at quarter to half-tempo and let the editing do the rest. 25/6 really isn't that hard at slow tempi - it only becomes difficult when you approach the required speed. 25/10 at slow tempo is trivial. That nagging doubt surely hangs over most listeners' perception of the project.

I guess one of the problems for the listener is that once you start from the perspective that these are edited midis, albeit ones initiated by a pianist's performance, it doesn't take much imagination to realise that the performance doesn't have to be good, accurate, a tempo or anything. It can all be done by edit thereafter. Now I'm not intending to imply that the OP can't play the piano, nor that there has been wholescale dishonesty going on, but frankly a competent sightreader could play through many of the etudes at quarter to half-tempo and let the editing do the rest. 25/6 really isn't that hard at slow tempi - it only becomes difficult when you approach the required speed. 25/10 at slow tempo is trivial. That nagging doubt surely hangs over most listeners' perception of the project.

Hi Andrew,

Let's avoid the subject of how close my original versions were from the enhanced versions. Let's just talk about the process. My question to you is, do you believe there is a certain art in editing "artistically" some works such as the 24 Études or others of that caliber, and what value do you give it regardless of how close or far the original is from the final result?

Of course there can be artistic and/or creative merit in how you edit the initial takes: it should be obvious that one person might edit it and produce a thoroughly unmusical result whilst another person with superior musical sensibilities could produce something worthwhile. I'm afraid, however, that I can't ignore the question of how much enhancement has gone on: it seems to me that is an intrinsic hazard of the process being undertaken. Life is unfair as well, because it's very difficult for you to answer that question convincingly.

The other problem you have, as I see it, is that you have effectively almost unlimited editing capability and with that in mind some might consider it reasonable to expect that - if you have sufficient musical insight and editing skills - you might produce something which is a truly artistic interpretation and worthy of comparison with great recordings of yesteryear. I don't think you've done that (though I accept that what constitutes the above is a subjective matter): in part because in honesty I don't think the qualities of tone and colour are good enough. I suspect that pedalling may be an issue. I don't want to dismiss your efforts out of hand simply because of the context in which they have been made, but whilst there is merit in what you have done, to my mind there is also something missing.

First of all, I say they are competent recordings and on the interpretation side it's as good and better than some of the best recordings out there, because in some case, such as Op 25 No 6 (thirds) I don't think any pianist could reach that degree of softness and fluidity at that speed and in thirds, and too me, that's what makes this Étude, the same for Op. 25 No 2. But that's me. But I don't want to debate the wrong thing here, I was just interested in a final result that one would listen without knowing anything about it and sound like a credible good quality recording played live. Now, of course, it doesn't have the same color as a real piano, but I wasn't trying to go that far. I can hear the difference myself, the lack of overtones, color, timbre, etc I know it's not the same. so there should be clear nuances between what I expected and what people thought I expected.

I'm not sure I would agree with the sentiments about interpretation in your first sentence which I find a rather sweeping statement. Listen to Friedman's 25/6. However, you're right, that is probably a side-issue.

Of course there can be artistic and/or creative merit in how you edit the initial takes: it should be obvious that one person might edit it and produce a thoroughly unmusical result whilst another person with superior musical sensibilities could produce something worthwhile. I'm afraid, however, that I can't ignore the question of how much enhancement has gone on: it seems to me that is an intrinsic hazard of the process being undertaken. Life is unfair as well, because it's very difficult for you to answer that question convincingly.

The other problem you have, as I see it, is that you have effectively almost unlimited editing capability and with that in mind some might consider it reasonable to expect that - if you have sufficient musical insight and editing skills - you might produce something which is a truly artistic interpretation and worthy of comparison with great recordings of yesteryear. I don't think you've done that (though I accept that what constitutes the above is a subjective matter): in part because in honesty I don't think the qualities of tone and colour are good enough. I suspect that pedalling may be an issue. I don't want to dismiss your efforts out of hand simply because of the context in which they have been made, but whilst there is merit in what you have done, to my mind there is also something missing.

Call me a philistine, but I don't think there's much at issue. Midi-editing has as its goal the making of an interesting, convincing, and aesthetically pleasing final product. That's not unlike the goal of a piano performance. So the end product, one might say, is the same.

What is clearly different is the PROCESS or means of arriving at the end-result. Pianists analyze and practice at the piano to realize a particular conception (to put the process in very general terms). Midi artists also have a conception... but they arrive at it by a fundamentally different process: manipulating note intensity ("velocity), duration, pitch, and tempo.

Many pianists say "Midi is a Cheat." Well, that's only the case if you try to pass off midi manipulation as practice at the piano. The latter is, in my own view, more difficult, much more time-consuming, but also more rewarding and fun. (That's a personal judgement.) It has, I think, higher social status for sure. So it is very tempting for midi-artists to suggest that much of their work is simply playing in the piece at a high standard, at the outset. The midi-editing is 10%, at best. That may be the case. But, quite significantly as you suggest above, it may NOT be the case. And to be honest, once you start midi-editing, the slope away from the initial recorded performance is very slippery. As well, it is really IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL, on the basis of the finished product, how much is midi editing and how much is the midi-artist's pianist ability.

Of course, the really important thing about midi-editing is that one need not have ANY piano skills at all. One can always step input a Chopin Nocturne, note by note, and start editing towards a convincing mock-up from there.

Ergo: piano technique is a sufficient condition of making a midi interpretation of Chopin (for example) but by no means a necessary one.

The conclusion follows easily that where a site like this one (and others) exists to discuss the PROCESS of making music at the piano, that discussion cannot benefit in any necessary way from a conversation with a midi artist. To the extent that the artist is a pianist by training AND exploits some of the relevant principles of piano performance in his midi-editing, there can be useful discussion, I suppose. But the all important physical aspect of technical analysis, so central to piano technique, cannot of course be discussed, because the midi-artist does not physically train at the piano or make technical changes to a piece at the keyboard. His or her "keyboard" is at the computer, not at the piano.

Of course, the really important thing about midi-editing is that one need not have ANY piano skills at all. One can always step input a Chopin Nocturne, note by note, and start editing towards a convincing mock-up from there.

JG

You said a lot of interesting things. For now I just want to address this statement you made. I have to say that is not true. Technically I imagine it's possible, but I've yet to hear a Chopin piece programmed with the mouse, from A to Z, and that sounded credible to my ears. In my process after the recording of a passage, if the expression isn't there or I don't feel it, it's almost a lost cause, no amounts of mouse clicks will save it. So for me the initial recording is critical and must have all the expression there before even touching your mousse.

I agree very much with what you said about anything we alter of a played passage is a very dangerous slope, and this is where the art on enhancing a passage comes in.

Of course, the really important thing about midi-editing is that one need not have ANY piano skills at all. One can always step input a Chopin Nocturne, note by note, and start editing towards a convincing mock-up from there.

JG

You said a lot of interesting things. For now I just want to address this statement you made. I have to say that is not true. Technically I imagine it's possible, but I've yet to hear a Chopin piece programmed with the mouse, from A to Z, and that sounded credible to my ears. In my process after the recording of a passage, if the expression isn't there or I don't feel it, it's almost a lost cause, no amounts of mouse clicks will save it. So for me the initial recording is critical and must have all the expression there before even touching your mousse.

I agree very much with what you said about anything we alter of a played passage is a very dangerous slope, and this is where the art on enhancing a passage comes in.

I have personally encountered plenty of mechanical Chopin midi files: we don't like them (and that's putting it kindly), but believe or not, many listeners do! Since music (and all art) is a matter of personal taste, I can't fault them, I can only provide alternatives and hope for the best! (This is less a difficulty for Bach's music, some think; it seems to wear different garb quite happily.)

But, you see, we are focussing on the PRODUCT in this instance, when we talk about WHAT sounds good, as opposed to HOW it is made to sound good. In THAT respect, what pianists at THIS site are mainly interested in is the PROCESS, the pianist's TECHNIQUE if you will, not the technique of the midi-artist (who may or may not be a gifted pianist). That's just a pragmatic thing, not a matter of principle. It's not saying, in other words, "we have no respect for midi" (although that may be true); it's just saying "Midi technique is not our bag here at Piano Society".

JG

Last edited by johnlewisgrant on Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

My question to you is, do you believe there is a certain art in editing "artistically" some works such as the 24 Études or others of that caliber, and what value do you give it regardless of how close or far the original is from the final result?

This is not pianism, and it isn't real. Just because the original project was done by someone who can play the piano, or on a subject of great value, in no way transmits warrant or validity to the end product. This is like so many other pretensions in society today. We know what a sound engineer is. What you are doing is performance engineering. Everyone knows the sound engineer is not the performing artist; a performance engineer is not a performing artist. No piano student would go to a performing engineer to learn the piano, but a performance engineering student can go to a pianist to learn musicianship -- but only of the particular works investigated! After that, the performance engineer knows nothing again. In your case you may embody both functions, but only one is a performing art, the other is a technical, artificial and pretensious application. This is artificial because it does not test against the limits of human capacity, just imagination. I continually suffer disapointment due to the difference between my imagination and my capacity and work hard to close the gap. A performance engineer never need work hard, just more. Just because we love [science] fiction, doesn't mean it's real. In fact, this is what you are attempting to sell: fictional music. Imagine fictional dance or fictional sculpture or fictional painting. No one will value fictional perfroming arts, at least not artists (except by deception).

_________________Eddy M. del Rio, MD"A smattering will not do. They must know all the keys, major and minor, and they must literally 'know them backwards.'" - Josef Lhevinne

Last edited by musical-md on Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Frankly, I was dismayed by Guy's posting. I might be called a purist or reactionary (or worse), but I personally don't believe that MIDI realizations have a legitimate role to play as piano performances at Piano Society. In Guy's initial post he did not at the outset mention "MIDI realizations" (it was only added later once controversy erupted). It was instead implied to be postings of actual piano performances. Without the benefit of that caveat of MIDI realizations , it was misleading to say the very least. The real agenda was Vienna Imperial 1.1 software, that is to say, promoting a commercial product.

Bottom line, I know that accomplished pianists put a huge amount of work into preparing repertoire for recordings. They use their piano technique to convey musical intent, mental imagery and emotion to interpret the music and serve the composer, and to put it across to an audience. If there is any post-editing required, pianists here keep it to an absolute minimum.

Playing the piano is a lofty endeavor, one steeped in rich traditions and performance practices. So when one sits at a PC using note sampling, sequencers, etc. to construct a mechanical MIDI performance, and then have the audacity to consider it as artistic, authentic pianism, personally I draw the line which is why I refute it here. I believe that for many of the serious pianists here, a MIDI realization not immediately acknowledged as such in a posting is an affront to the performing art and to those who work so hard to produce quality, authentic recordings.

Because we humans are mere mortals, we never produce perfection in our piano playing as much as we strive to attain it. Horowitz used to say that if a pianist could draw close enough just once in his career to almost be able to reach out and touch perfection (but not quite), it would be a lifetime achievement. But he added that attaining perfection would itself be imperfection. As much as we admired Michelangeli's precision, he was never satisfied with his own performances. Yet with the computerized capabilities of MIDI, synthetic perfection is now at hand to be pawned off on its listeners as true performing art. Until there is not a single tree left standing anywhere in the world from which to fashion a piano, I reject MIDI realizations. At best they might be electronic constructs mimicking the real art of piano, but true art they will never be!

David

_________________"Interpreting music means exploring the promise of the potential of possibilities." David April

Last edited by Rachfan on Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

Ok, let's say there's a piano work you have been listening to for the last 3 years, and love it! Then someone tells you: "Surprise, it's been dome through midi samples!"Are you then going to reject this piece and never listen to it again now that you have this knowledge?

Ok, let's say there's a piano work you have been listening to for the last 3 years, and love it! Then someone tells you: "Surprise, it's been dome through midi samples!"Are you then going to reject this piece and never listen to it again now that you have this knowledge?

If I didn't know better by now I'd almost think you were starting to understand

I would happily listen to a good midi rendition if it was a work that nobody played, or perhaps nobody could play well enough. To get to know a work, there is nothing wrong with artificial rendering. But to pick a set that is so well-known, has been recorded so marvellously by so many great pianists, and then claim that they are as good or even better than any of these interpretation-wise, smacks of deceit and pretense. That you may have played many of these in concert, as you claim, does change anything to that. I do not believe that any serious pianist who can perform Chopin etudes in concert would sit down at the computer and spend countless hours to create an idealized e-version of them. I also can't believe that any serious pianist would take this enterprise seriously, except maybe from a purely technical view if they are interested in that kind of thing.

IIRC you wrote on Piano World that you had received very positive feedback on FaceBook from many people including concert pianists.Being the suspicious-minded stalker without a life that I am, I immediately go check that of course. The adulating oneliner raves are funny, but more funny are the repeated calls for concert pianists to come forward. None did so far and I do not expect anybody will. There is the deceit thing again, which is why I can not take any of this seriously anymore. It may be me but I can not engage with someone I cannot trust. Not very objective, eh

But I won't kill the thread this time as long as it does not get too violent.

Ok, let's say there's a piano work you have been listening to for the last 3 years, and love it! Then someone tells you: "Surprise, it's been dome through midi samples!"Are you then going to reject this piece and never listen to it again now that you have this knowledge?

Personally, I wouldn't. I'd be impressed that someone had made midi sound that good. Sorry, but (due to the limitations of colour etc, which you yourself acknowledge) your recording is not at that level.

But to pick a set that is so well-known, has been recorded so marvellously by so many great pianists, and then claim that they are as good or even better than any of these interpretation-wise, smacks of deceit and pretense.

I just find it a bit silly. Sure, if you really work on something, you can end up with intimate knowledge of the most minute details of a piece and a conviction that yours is the true way, but to state such is to open oneself to ridicule.

Even sillier is to believe that people will not recognize from the first few notes that this is computer work rather than art.

But all these discussions in various forums are in a way publicity for VSL. Maybe that was the sole objective of the whole thing. Whether VSL should be happy with the way it's evolved, is another matter.... I don't think it will do them any favors. The VSL site is woefully vague about it all, starting off on the wrong foot with the proud header "Bacos Plays Chopin" and touting the same sort of blurb that Guy uses himself. Can't help thinking that maybe Guy is a major shareholder or something like that. Could just be that I need to get a life

My question to you is, do you believe there is a certain art in editing "artistically" some works such as the 24 Études or others of that caliber, and what value do you give it regardless of how close or far the original is from the final result?

This is not pianism, and it isn't real. Just because the original project was done by someone who can play the piano, or on a subject of great value, in no way transmits warrant or validity to the end product. This is like so many other pretensions in society today. We know what a sound engineer is. What you are doing is performance engineering. Everyone knows the sound engineer is not the performing artist; a performance engineer is not a performing artist. No piano student would go to a performing engineer to learn the piano, but a performance engineering student can go to a pianist to learn musicianship -- but only of the particular works investigated! After that, the performance engineer knows nothing again. In your case you may embody both functions, but only one is a performing art, the other is a technical, artificial and pretensious application. This is artificial because it does not test against the limits of human capacity, just imagination. I continually suffer disapointment due to the difference between my imagination and my capacity and work hard to close the gap. A performance engineer never need work hard, just more. Just because we love [science] fiction, doesn't mean it's real. In fact, this is what you are attempting to sell: fictional music. Imagine fictional dance or fictional sculpture or fictional painting. No one will value fictional perfroming arts, at least not artists (except by deception).

This is the heart of the matter. I agree almost entirely. I might quibble with the proposition that the end-result of midi-sculpting is not "real." Not a real performance; no question. But it is as physically real as an oil painting, but one that has not been "painted" in the usual manner. I think the "paint by numbers" analogy might be close, although not perfect. The process, means of production, is completely different. The skill involved is completely different. To call the result a "painting", one might even say, is misleading. But the end-result can, arguably, be indistinguishable from a professionallly pianted oil.

Therein lies one of th problems of talking about midi-editing. And you certainly do draw attention to it above. Midi editors talk in the language of music, using words like "performance." That kind of talk is hopelessly inaccurate; it is also deceptive and misleading, not because the product isn't potentially identical to a recorded performance (a midi device hooked up to a piano can do that), but because the process (like the paint by numbers painting} is totally different.

Perhaps there can be an "art" of painting by numbers and, consequently, the evolution of a "technique" specific to it; a language of criticism and evaluation unique to it; but its transparent that the language, even if it adopted the same words as the language of art criticism, would refer to completely and totally different techniques and cognitive processes.

There is, as well, an interesting half-way house between midi and true piano performance: imagine a very precise midi-player mechnism attached to a good Bos or Steinway D or Steingraeber, sitting in the best recording studio in the world. (A distasteful thought for many who may already realize where I'm going with this). Pollini enters the studio. Performs the entire set of Etudes (opus 10 and 48), which performance is completely recorded in midi. It is replayed to him in the studio, exactly as he played it on the instrument, and AT or BY that instrument as well, because remember... the instrument is hooked up to a midi player. Then Pollini says, hmmmm. I want to change this or that about his performance. The midi editor examines the midi record of Pollini's performance and fixes, say, one wrong note. Or speeds up an entire Etude. Pollini listens to the result, again played live in front of him on the Bos or the Steinway through the dead on accurate midi player. And says: "I like that." The mics are turned on. The result recorded.

This scenario puts the test to folks like me who want to draw a bright line between midi-editing and true pianism. I think there's an easy answer to this sort of challenge, but I'm not going to say what it is. Is it midi or real? Is it aesthetically less "valuable", for want of a better term. Is it qualitatively different from what, I'm told, sound engineers do to classical music?

I dearly wish there was a line could be drawn between 'real' (i.e. fully acoustic and non-edited) and not real. It would make our lives ever so much easier. But there seem to be a zillion possibilities in between. We imagine a line somewhere but really it is a vast no-mans land. Ultimately the admins get to decide on which side of the imaginary fence a submission sits. An ungrateful task because we can't be objective and whatever we decide it will be hotly argued by people from both sides of the camp. I don't at all enjoy steering this cramped course, but I do not even want to consider the two only possible alternatives:

1) Only allow acoustic non-edited recordings. That would lower both the quantity and quality of our recordings drastically (as many people only have a digital, and we don't want to hear tons of errors, bad sound, etc)

2) Allow anything at all. In that case we might as well dismantle PS and refer people to YT where anything goes.

Looks like these may be the same people who commented on Facebook ? It stands to reason that people from the 'virtual scene' would have a different reaction than us traditional pianists here. I am amused by your signature saying 'Composer/VSL Demo Maker'. Modesty is such a virtue

There are so many things mentioned in the lasts few posts here that are totally erroneous, unfounded and cheap shots, stated in a way to make me look bad etc I could mention many of them, but it's not worth it. You guys are very upset I have my opinion of this, but I have the right to my opinion, yes or no? This doesn't represent VSL, it's my opinion only. Ok, you guys think I'm arrogant, I'm pretentious and whatever, that is your right as well. The fact that it is creating such controversy everywhere is a sign that i did my job more than well and that was the main goal. All the rest is just personal opinions, and if you don't respect that we each have the right to our opinions, than it's quite sad. This debate has become so repetitive, it's got quite boring now and everything has been said in every shape and color. I fooled the people here, that's all I wanted to do, for the rest you should not loose sleep over it, there are more important things in life. Move on!

This discussion is now ongoing in three places: here, Piano World and Piano Street, with somewhat different results.

Here it quickly got out of hand with extremely personal attacks, and the thread was soon locked and someone got banned. It was reopened in a calmer mood, but so many posts are edited out that it will be difficult for a newcomer to understand what is going on.

At PW the thing also got out of hand. That crowd is much less emphatically against midi-edited submissions, but also much less mature - flame wars are not uncommon there. Unfortunately the moderator was away. When he got back he locked the thread. Then someone started another thread on the same subject and it got nasty again. Just as an example, someone declared the intent to find Guys employer and complain about his derogatory behaviour. PW is quite liberal in interpreting the civility requirements - I wonder what it will take to get banned from there.

At PS the discussion is comparatively calm, though not without outbursts.

There are three separate concerns here and they tend to get confused, arguments from one spilling over to another though they are really not connected.

The first is whether midi edited recordings constitute a valid art form. Some say no, they are soulless, cheating (analogous to athletes on steroids), draw attention from the all important gymnastics of playing, and insulting to hard working real pianists. Other say yes, the object of interest is the final product, and it is no less cheating than using photoshop when publishing photographs, and anyway lots of editing is routinely done in the music industry. This we could potentially discuss here. Although the moderators have made their point extremely clear there can be room for discussion. But perhaps not in a forum titled "audition room"?

The second is the value of Guy's particular submission, the Chopin etudes. This should probably not be discussed here since the moderators don't want it. I wouldn't mind, but I think we should respect the wishes of those who work hard to maintain the site. It is their house and they can make the rules.

The third is if Guy's particular behaviour in this place is admissible. He posted without saying these are midi edited in order to see what would be our unbiased reaction, many people then felt deliberately mislead. I can understand the frustration and anger felt here but to keep bringing this up strikes me as vindictive and non productive since Guy himself has admitted he went about this wrongly and showed understanding of how he should have done it and assured us how he will do it next time.

Yes, on PW, it started off bad, it is to be expected from all purists, it seems, anywhere. However, if you look now, the mood is very calm, and we have come to a mutual understanding. As we are speaking things are going great on PW.

As for PS, the only outburst came from a couple of frustrated people who came directly from PW, at the time things got out of hand, but they quickly got their asses kicked by others. Just go and see for yourself.

My FB wall: why don't you take a visit and see for yourself.

Piano Society: Very bad relations, especially with the mods.

Last edited by guybacos on Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Oh brother, Guy... this has gone on way too long. We figured out within minutes that you didn't play all these etudes. Also, you said a couple pages ago that you don't like us or our forum, so why are you still here? It's obvious that you simply crave attention, whether it's positive or negative. Poor Guy.... So one more time, since you seem to love putting us admins and the forum in general down so much, then just stay away, okay? I'll be happy to delete your account if you wish.

_________________"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

I'm sorry PianoLady, this IS a public forum, if people say things concerning me or my work I have the right to reply. Hope you don't have a problem with that! As for your remarks about me, you could keep them for yourself!

I'm sorry PianoLady, this IS a public forum, if people say things concerning me or my work I have the right to reply. Hope you don't have a problem with that! As for your remarks about me, you could keep them for yourself!

You are totally out of line and you better stop with the bullying. Yes, this is a public forum, but you can be deleted and deactivated in a split second. Shall I?

_________________"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

I also think it's very unprofessional from the mods to bad mouth like this, including lies, a respected composer.

Wops, sorry... I'd forgotten all about you being a Very Respected Composer (as per the 2nd edit of your message ). All this talk about you being a Good Pianist must have confused me. IMO you should have stuck with being a composer/arranger/democreator maybe, and not pretend you are a pianist. If there's one thing we cannot stand here it is pretending.

Now let's end this childish and futile thread, it is going absolutely nowhere despite all the good points being made. We would like to discuss music once more, and I'm sure you also have better things to do, like starting on the definitive VSL version of the Bach 48 or Beethoven 32. Make sure you perform them in concert first.

So.... all good things come to an end. It was fun while it lasted. Goodbye.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum